Money in Politics

[rickb]

Okay, so the moneyed interests want open borders and trade agreements that make it easy to offshore U.S. jobs.  Trump says he is against these things because they weaken our society.

Do you think he is secretly for these things because he is his own moneyed interest?

I'm not following your logic.

Yes.  I'm thinking he is actually for whatever makes him (and his ultra rich friends) the most money, but says whatever will get him the most votes.

He is the ultimate whore.  Takes your money, but makes you believe (s)he loves you.

It's certainly possible.

I guess that would mean no wall with Mexico, huh?

I wonder why Romney is opposed to Trump if your theory is correct.

Do you think Hillary is a better choice?

If he and his billionaire friends can make a trillion dollars building a wall, sure there might be wall.  However it will be about as effective as the TSA.  Think illegal immigrant theater. 

There's no way he'll deport 11 million illegal immigrants, or make any effort to penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants.  I mean, how many illegals do you suppose work at the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas?  I'd be very surprised if it's a number less than several hundred.  Will he fine himself?

The Republican establishment is going bat-shit crazy because Trump is upsetting the power structure.  He's stepping to the front of the line which makes all of the money the power players have spent on buying influence kind of go up in smoke.  And they're pissed as hell.  The deal used to be they threw money at the Republican party and whoever got elected would do their bidding.  I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that Trump will do their bidding, but they'll have to pay HIM (and they already paid, so now they'll have to pay twice).

Do I think Hillary is a better choice?  Bottom line, yes.  But I'm essentially a single issue voter where my single issue is the Supreme Court.  I think our only hope going forward is to get the money out of the political process and I think the only way to do that is to overturn Citizen's United and various other decisions dating back to the turn of the 20th century which gave corporations rights equivalent to people.  Republican appointees have consistently sided with the interests of big business.  I think we simply can't afford any more Republican appointees.

[MediumTex]

Yes.  I'm thinking he is actually for whatever makes him (and his ultra rich friends) the most money, but says whatever will get him the most votes.

He is the ultimate whore.  Takes your money, but makes you believe (s)he loves you.

It's certainly possible.

I guess that would mean no wall with Mexico, huh?

I wonder why Romney is opposed to Trump if your theory is correct.

Do you think Hillary is a better choice?

If he and his billionaire friends can make a trillion dollars building a wall, sure there might be wall.  However it will be about as effective as the TSA.  Think illegal immigrant theater. 

There's no way he'll deport 11 million illegal immigrants, or make any effort to penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants.  I mean, how many illegals do you suppose work at the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas?  I'd be very surprised if it's a number less than several hundred.  Will he fine himself?

The Republican establishment is going bat-shit crazy because Trump is upsetting the power structure.  He's stepping to the front of the line which makes all of the money the power players have spent on buying influence kind of go up in smoke.  And they're pissed as hell.  The deal used to be they threw money at the Republican party and whoever got elected would do their bidding.  I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that Trump will do their bidding, but they'll have to pay HIM (and they already paid, so now they'll have to pay twice).

Do I think Hillary is a better choice?  Bottom line, yes.  But I'm essentially a single issue voter where my single issue is the Supreme Court.  I think our only hope going forward is to get the money out of the political process and I think the only way to do that is to overturn Citizen's United and various other decisions dating back to the turn of the 20th century which gave corporations rights equivalent to people.  Republican appointees have consistently sided with the interests of big business.  I think we simply can't afford any more Republican appointees.

That's a really interesting take on things.

Your reading of Trump is that he is basically lying about every single aspect of his campaign, and I mean everything.

One question about this theory, though, is why isn't Trump soliciting campaign contributions from all of the usual suspects if he is only doing this to turn himself into THE moneyed interest in politics?

[rickb]

Your reading of Trump is that he is basically lying about every single aspect of his campaign, and I mean everything.

One question about this theory, though, is why isn't Trump soliciting campaign contributions from all of the usual suspects if he is only doing this to turn himself into THE moneyed interest in politics?

Yes, I think he's basically lying about every single aspect of his campaign.  It's all an act.  Heck - isn't that what PS thinks, too?

I think he's not soliciting campaign contributions from the usual suspects because he understands refusing their money (now) looks good to the peons - and what the heck good are campaign contributions?  He doesn't need the campaign contributions since he can get all the free publicity he wants by acting outrageous.  This puts him in a position where anyone wanting something will have to make a deal directly with him.

Let's say Monsanto wants the whole GMO labeling thing killed dead.  Pre-Trump they contribute to campaigns in the expectation that they can later call in favors.  Post-Trump they'll have to make an under the table deal directly with Trump.  His first question will, of course, be what's in it for me?  If the answer is nothing, then no deal.  If he becomes president, I'd be shocked if his family and friends don't become vastly more wealthy.

I sincerely think he has no morals, no values, no religion - other than $$$.

[MediumTex]

Your reading of Trump is that he is basically lying about every single aspect of his campaign, and I mean everything.

One question about this theory, though, is why isn't Trump soliciting campaign contributions from all of the usual suspects if he is only doing this to turn himself into THE moneyed interest in politics?

Yes, I think he's basically lying about every single aspect of his campaign.  It's all an act.  Heck - isn't that what PS thinks, too?

I think he's not soliciting campaign contributions from the usual suspects because he understands refusing their money (now) looks good to the peons - and what the heck good are campaign contributions?  He doesn't need the campaign contributions since he can get all the free publicity he wants by acting outrageous.  This puts him in a position where anyone wanting something will have to make a deal directly with him.

Let's say Monsanto wants the whole GMO labeling thing killed dead.  Pre-Trump they contribute to campaigns in the expectation that they can later call in favors.  Post-Trump they'll have to make an under the table deal directly with Trump.  His first question will, of course, be what's in it for me?  If the answer is nothing, then no deal.  If he becomes president, I'd be shocked if his family and friends don't become vastly more wealthy.

I sincerely think he has no morals, no values, no religion - other than $$$.

That is perhaps the best response yet to PS's ongoing question of "What specific bad things are you concerned that Trump will do?"

I can easily imagine all of Trump's family members opening up lobbying shops once Trump becomes President.  After that, Trump might have a rule that no one is allowed to enter the Oval Office without being escorted by a Trump family member.

As I recall, Reagan's houseboy Michael Deaver basically did exactly what I am describing above and made some nice money before being convicted of lying to Congress in 1987.

[Pointedstick]

Money in politics is definitely one axis of anger in this country. But I think it's overblown. Trump's enemies have spent like half a billion dollars to unseat him and it hasn't amounted to a hill of beans. Money has always been in politics and it's probably impossible to separate them, but it's not really the money we're fed up with: it's the access: the sense that politicians listen to social elites, business leaders, and the Lizard Illuminati a lot more than the voters they're ostensibly representing. Money is a symptom of that access, but not really a cause.

This change in who are the real bosses has manifested in the country trying out a variety of policies that the elites of both parties wanted that had only grudging support at best from the people such as the Iraq war, the No Child Left Behind law, multiculturalism, outsourcing, high levels of immigration, "free trade" treaties, anti-coal environmental laws, the abandonment of unions, endless leftward pushing on social acceptance of gay and transgender people, and all manner of corporatism so common as to make examples superfluous.

I know that Trump is a dangerous, uncouth bull in a china shop. But I get far stronger vibes from him than any other candidate--including Bernie Sanders--that he has the potential to shake this up and challenge the Lizard Illuminati plutocrat rulers, if only because of the naked panic that he engenders in them. If they're terrified of him, that's a great sign to me. I hate those people, and Hillary Clinton is one of them and slept with the rest in her quest for power. A vote for Hillary is a vote to continue the status quo of politics-as-wedge-issue-divisiveness that makes people whose interests are mostly aligned hate each other while issues of substance are ignored and the plutocrats exploit everyone else and hollow out the country for their own gain.

[MediumTex]

Money in politics is definitely one axis of anger in this country. But I think it's overblown. Trump's enemies have spent like half a billion dollars to unseat him and it hasn't amounted to a hill of beans. Money has always been in politics and it's probably impossible to separate them, but it's not really the money we're fed up with: it's the access: the sense that politicians listen to social elites, business leaders, and the Lizard Illuminati a lot more than the voters they're ostensibly representing. Money is a symptom of that access, but not really a cause.

This change in who are the real bosses has manifested in the country trying out a variety of policies that the elites of both parties wanted that had only grudging support at best from the people such as the Iraq war, the No Child Left Behind law, multiculturalism, outsourcing, high levels of immigration, "free trade" treaties, anti-coal environmental laws, the abandonment of unions, endless leftward pushing on social acceptance of gay and transgender people, and all manner of corporatism so common as to make examples superfluous.

I know that Trump is a dangerous, uncouth bull in a china shop. But I get far stronger vibes from him than any other candidate--including Bernie Sanders--that he has the potential to shake this up and unseat the Lizard Illuminati plutocrat rulers, if only because of the naked panic that he has created in the very people who have been the cause. If he terrifies them, that's a great sign to me. I hate those people, and Hillary Clinton is one of them and slept with the rest in her quest for power. A vote for Hillary is a vote to continue the status quo of politics-as-wedge-issue-divisiveness that makes people whose interests are mostly aligned hate each other while issues of substance are ignored and the plutocrats exploit everyone else and hollow out the country for their own gain.

I agree that Trump is the only candidate who seems to really frighten the establishment, and I agree that the establishment's constituency doesn't really seem to be the American people.

The problem is that what often happens when you have this kind of frustration is that hucksters move into the "outsider" space promising to fix things, and they often just make them worse in a whole new way.  That's basically what Obama did in 2008. 

How is Trump's argument today different than Obama's argument in 2008?  Obama promised "Hope and Change" and Trump is promising to "Make America Great Again."  How are we supposed to figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth?  If you say "Sometimes you just have to be willing to take a chance", I would say that's what we did in 2008, and things got worse, not better.

I don't have the answers.  I'm just trying to sort through all of it like everyone else.

It seems pretty clear, though, that the establishment in both parties are equally corrupt, which shouldn't be a surprise, considering that the same corporate interests have captured basically the entire political process.

It's interesting how when it comes to the Supreme Court we like to think that it is above all of this whorehouse stuff, but in some ways the Supreme Court is the worst of them all, and here's why: If your criteria for a Supreme Court nominee is basically someone who will reliably rule as you would like them to, not because they are corrupt, but rather because that's just who they are, then it becomes harder than ever to try to fix that institution.  In other words, if the problem with the Supreme Court isn't that it is corrupt, but rather that it is stacked with justices whose votes can be predicted before cases are even argued, then what is the Supreme Court really, other than a rubber stamp based on the political preferences of the President who nominated them?  Interestingly, when a justice slips through who has a trace of independence like Souter, Kennedy or Roberts, people call them "turncoats" and "disappointments."  They say this any time a justice's vote can't be predicted before a case is argued.  That seems kind of sad to me.

[MediumTex]

Your post presupposes that the dysfunctional environment is behind us.

No it doesn't. That I indicated that we've all endured great dysfunction does not comment either way on today's situation. If you're curious, I'm under the impression that each year has been worse than the last since my birth and likely generations earlier.

If we can't trust our politicians to deliver what they told their constituents, we can't trust democracy at all. I can live with that, I'm not particularly fond of democracy as it incentivizes lying your way into office. However, all of you who think voting matters or changes anything "presuppose" that politicians are honest and deliver a large enough percentage of time to make the whole debacle worth engaging in. It's not my job to back that up because I believe it less than most of you.

Can you summarize the point you are trying to make?

I'm not sure if you are saying the system is broken beyond repair, and thus no one should expect anything good from it regardless of the candidates, OR are you saying that until voters show a willingness to have faith in SOMETHING things will never get better.

Personally, I think that politicians are actually quite good at delivering on their promises to their constituents.  My complaint is that politician's constituencies have increasingly become the moneyed interests that fund their re-elections, rather than the people who actually vote in those elections.

[Greg]

Everywhere I look, I see that same pathology being applied to Donald Trump. He actually, legitimately, for the first time in most of our lives, seems like he might fix some of the stuff that actually needs fixing - so those among us who have been burned too many times are wary to a fault.

I hope enough people can find enough hope inside themselves to get past this maladaptive level of suspicion and negativity by election season.

Yes. And I say this as a bitter millennial who reflexively rushes to cynicism. In a lot of ways, Obama entrenched this. He explicitly ran on a platform of hope and change and "It will be better this time!" and what did we get? More of the same. Fool me once…

And so many people who are aghast at Trump and theorize about all the terrible things he might be or do don't seem to understand that nearly every other politician they have ever supported or gotten excited about embodied the very same problems, or worse.

Trump is just honest about it. It's the curse of honesty. Take Trump's lies and flip-flopping. In his lying, he's honest about how you need to lie your ass off to run for office. He doesn't really try to hide it. This uncomfortably confronts us with the fact that we like it that way. We don't want a candidate who tells the truth and holds deep, abiding principles. Candidates like that would be Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz, and we either don't like them or don't consider them electable.

We want a candidate who coos in our ears at night and tells us comforting lies and then goes and does terrible things when we close our eyes, even though we know it's happening. When we recoil in disgust from Trump's unabashed lying, we are really recoiling in disgust from ourselves, from who we have become, from what politics has done to us.

To speak to rickb's comments for a moment, I think that he probably doesn't like any Republican for the reasons he has explained--i.e., Republican Supreme Court nominees support more money in politics, and he believes that is destroying our system (I agree that money is destroying the representative aspects of our government).

As far as being cynical about politicians' promises, I think that Obama has really really REALLY poisoned the well when it comes to that one.  I almost feel like the American public is entitled to be reflexively cynical and suspicious of anything any politician says after the massive screwjob that Obama turned out to be.  It just takes time for that kind of anger and disappointment to work itself out.

Is Trump lying to us all?  He is certainly lying to us about some things, but as PS point out, the process is designed for only liars to succeed.  The question is what Trump's motives and ambitions are behind his own personal wall of lies.  Is it to enrich himself, his family and his rich friends, OR is it to give the American people what they have been begging for since at least 2008, which is simply to have a President who is not bought and paid for by the moneyed interests who have almost completely captured our government?  I don't know the answer to that one.  I guess time will tell.

I so wish that this had been Kasich's year.  He's far from perfect as a candidate, but he seems to understand what the American people want and need, and I think he would have done his best to clean things up a bit, while trying to represent the entire country, rather than just his own narrow ideological and financial interests.

I agree that Hillary would likely nominate Supreme Court justices who are less friendly to money in politics, but the whole Hillary package just sounds like more Obama, which just sounds like more conflict, partisanship, and moneyed interests getting to the front of the line on important issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5-4jW5dLSI (Good video on why taking money out of politics isn't actually a good idea. Or at least provides a different view point. Worth a look. From Prager University).

[Xan]

I'm curious why anyone would want to "take money out of politics" when the alternative is to put government in a position to decide what speech to allow and what speech to forbid.  THAT is the nightmare scenario.

[Greg]

I'm curious why anyone would want to "take money out of politics" when the alternative is to put government in a position to decide what speech to allow and what speech to forbid.  THAT is the nightmare scenario.

Not sure if you watched the video in my above post but it exactly follows that logic.

[rickb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5-4jW5dLSI (Good video on why taking money out of politics isn't actually a good idea. Or at least provides a different view point. Worth a look. From Prager University).

Restricting how much money individuals can spend is completely different from what we now have (thanks to Citizen's United) - which is that corporations can spend as much as they want.  The justification for this is that the Supreme Court has ruled (repeatedly now - starting with a landmark case in 1896) that corporations have the same rights under the constitution as individuals which (IMO) is clearly ridiculous.  For more on this, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood.

What I want is to take corporate money out of politics.

This same disease (corporate personhood) has led to giant media conglomerates, like News Corp and Clear Channel, that are allowed to own dozens (hundreds in the case of Clear Channel) media outlets such as newspapers, TV, and radio stations. 

Giant corporations control the news.

They also can contribute as much money as they want to political campaigns.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Xan]

Rick, that's an order of magnitude less scary than having the government being in change of who can say what around an election.

[Pointedstick]

Restricting how much money individuals can spend is completely different from what we now have (thanks to Citizen's United) - which is that corporations can spend as much as they want.  The justification for this is that the Supreme Court has ruled (repeatedly now - starting with a landmark case in 1896) that corporations have the same rights under the constitution as individuals which (IMO) is clearly ridiculous.  For more on this, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood.

If Citizens United had gone the other way, then the government would have prevailed in its efforts to prohibit a nonprofit company from broadcasting a political video close to an election.

I'm not saying that I'm real fond of the influence of giant corporations on politics or anything, but it's extremely difficult for me to imagine any way for Citizens United to go the other way without the result being a first amendment in tatters. The New York Times is a for profit corporation. The implications of the central government being able to control political speech by corporations should be seen by liberals as the first step towards totalitarianism. Instead it is seen as Democracy's Only Hope.

[jafs]

Corporations aren't people, and they're not associations of people - they're a distinct legal entity which makes them separate, by definition, from the people involved.

As such, they have no constitutional rights at all, and should have only the rights and responsibilities that we decide they should have.

People and associations of people have constitutional rights.

[Reub]

Haven't the courts ruled otherwise?

[Pointedstick]

Corporations aren't people, and they're not associations of people - they're a distinct legal entity which makes them separate, by definition, from the people involved.

As such, they have no constitutional rights at all, and should have only the rights and responsibilities that we decide they should have.

People and associations of people have constitutional rights.

What does "an association of people" mean to you? You mean like a union?

[jafs]

Haven't the courts ruled otherwise?

Yes, but that doesn't make them right.

The SC isn't infallible by any means, and I'm sure that we can all find decisions they've made that we disagree with.

[jafs]

Corporations aren't people, and they're not associations of people - they're a distinct legal entity which makes them separate, by definition, from the people involved.

As such, they have no constitutional rights at all, and should have only the rights and responsibilities that we decide they should have.

People and associations of people have constitutional rights.

What does "an association of people" mean to you? You mean like a union?

I would think it means a group of people.

In this context, a group of people who gather together to pursue common goals would have the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.  For example, you and I could get together to practice religion, or assemble and petition the government, etc.

[Pointedstick]

In this context, a group of people who gather together to pursue common goals would have the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.  For example, you and I could get together to practice religion, or assemble and petition the government, etc.

What about if you and I want to get together and make a movie about how terrible Donald Trump is? Why should this be prohibited if we decided to form a nonprofit to facilitate the making of our movie?

[jafs]

What does "an association of people" mean to you? You mean like a union?

I would think it means a group of people.

In this context, a group of people who gather together to pursue common goals would have the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.  For example, you and I could get together to practice religion, or assemble and petition the government, etc.

so making money by creating a marketable product, is not a common goal that they have gathered together to pursue?

Sure it is.

But a corporation is legally distinct from the people involved, by definition.

[jafs]

In this context, a group of people who gather together to pursue common goals would have the constitutional rights of the individuals involved.  For example, you and I could get together to practice religion, or assemble and petition the government, etc.

What about if you and I want to get together and make a movie about how terrible Donald Trump is? Why should this be prohibited if we decided to form a nonprofit to facilitate the making of our movie?

Because a corporation is a separate legal entity, by definition.

The whole idea of incorporation is to create that separation, in order to limit personal liability, hence the LLC title.  Once you've created a separate entity, you can't then also claim it's not separate.

[Pointedstick]

Because a corporation is a separate legal entity, by definition.

The whole idea of incorporation is to create that separation, in order to limit personal liability, hence the LLC title.  Once you've created a separate entity, you can't then also claim it's not separate.

Let me see if I understand your position.

If you and I and some friends decide to get together and make an anti-Donald-Trump movie on an ac hoc basis, with no formal organization, that's fine and we should face no restrictions on when and where we are legally permitted to distribute our movie.

If you and I and some friends decide to get together and make an anti-Donald-Trump movie and we form a nonprofit corporation to do it, the government should be able to prohibit us from distributing our movie close to an election.

is that correct?

[jafs]

Not quite.

My first point is that a corporation is not a person or a group of people, and so corporations have no constitutional rights.

That means that any rights they have are granted by our legal system and laws which allow incorporation (there's no constitutional right to form a corporation as far as I know).

So, we should discuss/debate/seriously consider what rights and responsibilities corporations have and should have under our system, and then grant them.

If groups of people gather together, then they have constitutional rights, but those rights aren't absolute, generally.  So, we still should discuss and debate whether there should be any restrictions, even on private spending on campaigns/etc.  There's a strong case to be made that spending money isn't really equivalent to speech, and also that unlimited money means that those with money wind up having a lot more influence than the rest of us.

I basically agree with Justice Stevens' dissent on CU (although I had the ideas before I read it :-))

[Pointedstick]

Not quite.

My first point is that a corporation is not a person or a group of people, and so corporations have no constitutional rights.

That means that any rights they have are granted by our legal system and laws which allow incorporation (there's no constitutional right to form a corporation as far as I know).

So, we should discuss/debate/seriously consider what rights and responsibilities corporations have and should have under our system, and then grant them.

If groups of people gather together, then they have constitutional rights, but those rights aren't absolute, generally.  So, we still should discuss and debate whether there should be any restrictions, even on private spending on campaigns/etc.  There's a strong case to be made that spending money isn't really equivalent to speech, and also that unlimited money means that those with money wind up having a lot more influence than the rest of us.

I basically agree with Justice Stevens' dissent on CU (although I had the ideas before I read it :-))

I'm not quite sure how those principles translate into the real world. Maybe you can clarify it out for me.

If you and I and some friends decide to get together and make an anti-Donald-Trump movie and for whatever reason we form a nonprofit corporation to do it, should the government should be able to prohibit us from distributing our movie close to an election?

[jafs]

I can't answer the question that narrowly.

Many of us seem to agree that money has infiltrated politics in a way that's not good, and that getting the money out of politics would be a good thing.

I'd ban all campaign contributions, limit the amount of personal money candidates can spend to a very low level, provide free and equal airtime for in-depth interviews and debates, all of which are carefully scored and fact checked immediately afterwards.

It gets harder when we're talking about other facets, like your movie.  But, the general point is that money provides more access/influence, and that's a bad thing.  Imagine a guy standing on the street corner with a sign that says "Legalize drugs".  He's going to have a lot less influence than somebody who makes a slick commercial that's anti drug and gets it played on the networks at prime time.

What's your suggestion about the problem?